my point was more general than the example I gave (because they are familiar to me), and what i was trying to explain, is that basically all the organisms that have been found on earth do have genes that are related to another. Because of that the tree of life has been built, and when a new organism is found, it can be added to it relatively easily (very much so when we talk about prokaryotes, damn eukaryotes are bit harder to deal with). And to a large extent ribosomal phylogeny do match other types of inferred phylogenyn (Horzontal Genetic transfer muddling things a bit). Similarly with the panda's thumb. The bear family lost the thumb before the panda evolved, and for Panda the ability to grab bamboo shoot is quite useful, and an appendage allowing them to do just that, but that did not come from the long lost thumb was selected for.

As for your question about the Y chromosome, I have absolutely no idea what it is about (I deal with bacteria) and cannot provide any kind of informed answer, so I have to excuse myself and not deal with it.The wider point being that both thos facts are coherent with what would be expected from an evolutionary point of view, where necessity and chance are the name of the game. On the other hand, if I use a creationist view of the world, I cannot expect one specific behaviour, because everything can be expected. There are no predictions possible, just observations. Add to that the fact that those observations do not show a coherent design scheme (the creator "knew" how to make a thumb, why do the pandas have this weird thing instead?) and the idea of an intelligence behind creation seem to require an incredibly pervert or/and dumb designer.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

I do NOT believe in everything told in the bible literally. I am willing to realize that it has a grain of truth in it. It got distorted through all the re-writes of various versions and translations etc. Thus, I do NOT believe in any part of “we are exactly the same as we were made by God”.

However, if you allow that the story of creation at least reflects the shadow of what actually happened (after all the idea for the bible did appear from somewhere) and say that god is a “mad scientist” while we are experimental subjects, everything falls in its place…

I know I cannot prove +ve this theory any more than creationists can prove theirs OR any more than evolutionists can prove that our common ancestor with the ape was more ape-like in appearance than human-like. As I said before, evolution from ape-like to human-like appearance presumes appearance of new genes in the gene pool (from where?) that goes against commonly observed disappearance of genes overtime (gene -> pseudogene).

You said you deal with microbes, so… You should know that unless bacteria can pick up genetic material from environment, new genes do not spontaneously appear. However, they can mutate existing genes to survive. Like kan resistance due to mutation in ribosomes. As you also know that too many mutations in any functional gene would lead to loss of fuction…

I really think that if there is something true in the bible with respect to creation, it probably was serendipity. Whatever a group of older semitic nomads could gather from the local myth and their own creativity, maybe informed by rough observation of the natural world (which amounts to anecdata). So I seriously doubt that even that shadow can inform us about biology/geology or anything that happened.

Your idea that your god is a mad scientist and that nature as we see it is its experiment, is in fact just a rehash of the god of the gaps hypothesis. And thus as "useful" as the deity hidden where noone can see it. At least the FSM has the elegance to actually use its noodly appendage to prevent detection, rather than hidding deeper and deeper away from science.And from an utilitarist point of view, such deity is as useful as solipsism.

Genes disappear, but also multiply (duplication at the gene or (part of) chromosome level, viral transformation have been documented). And if the level horizontal genetic transfer is higher than that of gene creation, it does not preclude the possibility for genes to be copied and then to evolve independantly. To get money I could go in the north of my country and mine for gold, or get a job close to my home. Te fact that most of us opt for the latter does not prevent the possibility of the former. It is just less frequently witnessed, and generally also less efficient when credit cards offer abounds

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

in my point of view, all we need is some kind of replicator and the notion of fallibility. Nothing is perfect and some errors are likely to occur during replication. In addition, resources are unlimited so replicators have varying success. Finally, and for bioinformaticians there can be no better example for evolution than looking at a sequence alignment because the fact that similar genes can be found in different organisms.

Zenilthat66 its all about perspective, if there is design in the universe, then whos to say it a god, and even if it was, whos to assume he's flawless, after all we are said to be made in his image, and we are certainly flawed!

Well - if he's flawed, then the things said about him like; Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent are incorrect. So why call him a god?

AFJ wrote:Where is the antimatter that should be a result of the big bang?

If sedimentary rock built up over billions of years, why are there tremendously vast graveyards of fossils which contain sea creatures BESIDE mammals and other land animals, often twisted as evidence of a large catastrophe and that vast amounts of sediment overcame them quickly?

If sedimentary rock built up over millions of years, why are there 90 degree bends in multiple very thick strata in the grand canyon without cracks? These same strata extend throughout the US, some as far as the UK. This would be an impossible feature unless the strata was still wet when bent.

Why is there evidence that literally the equivalent of 24 cubic miles of sediment was moved from the northwestern US to the south central US? By what means did this happen?

From what source did the hydrogen gas come from that has been in the sun for over 5 billion years? The law of thermodynamics would conclude that all the energy of the sun must be accounted for, therefore what is the vast amount of hydrogen that would be required to acount for billions of years of joules and enrgy, and how did it all come together as hydrogen into one place?

Since scientists insists on the oxygen crisis--that is that the O2 in the atmosphere came from plants--and that before the O2 crisis in the Hadean period, the earth's atmosphere was formed by volcanoes and high in CO2---How did liquid water form? It would have been in vapor form and the heat caused by the greenhouse gas of CO2 would not have allowed it to condense to liquid. By what means did the alledged early earth change from mostly CO2 to now levels around 1% CO2 and 17% O2 with liquid water, if this model is true?

I believe it is pointless trying to argue for/against religion/science by pointing out problems in scientific theory. If you are doing this then you don't understand the philosophy of the scientific method. The beauty of science (and I say beauty because I do have a bit of a bias due to being able to empathies with the philosophy) is that you can never 'prove' anything as being right, all you can do is gather evidence that show alternate theories to be unlikely/wrong, thus increasing the probability that your hypothesis is correct.

Therefore it is quite futile pointing out issues where scientific knowledge may be wrong in order to show religious views as being right. The only way that science progresses is through new ideas, ideas which in most cases contradict old ones. This leads to new scientific concepts/theories.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the debate for or against evolution and religion should concentrate on the philosophy behind science and religious beliefs (or how we perceive reality) rather than on specific scientific theories or the interpretation of religious scripture.

The way I see it most biological scientists would love it if anyone (religious or not) came up with some scientifically legitimate falsifiable hypotheses that may disprove the theory of evolution. If we are on the wrong track I certainly would like to know. However if these people did hold religious beliefs the problem they would then encounter is that only because there was a paradigm shift in biology (see Thomas Kun's theories) doesn't mean that science would then recognise religious beliefs as scientific theory.

Until then evolution remains a fascinating and extremely insightful theory that helps us understanding many of the puzzling observations of life. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzansky 1964).

So, in a fantasy dialogue with the being Vendian - Charnay - who has fallen in our time, I explain the mechanism of the so-called Cambrian Explosion:

***** "- Well, something did you remember? - said Ue Ooi.- Yes, of course, much more! Many ... The main issue - that's what I remember! Six thousand years of wander and think: - How could it happen that a great nation, commanding all other peoples and the mass of dead-end domesticated species ... has now become worm-parasite in the intestines of their former slaves?Everyone was silent, digesting what was said.- Uh, yes. So. Our civilization has enjoyed all the benefits that are provided global division of labor between the specially bred for a variety of social and business functions - several dozen species and races - the service-Jobers with much shorter life expectancy. Well, enjoy these benefits, we - "The people of Kings." Although ... was believed that all these types - degenerative just of race and breed our own species ... But it was a terrible sedition, which is tightly nipped in the bud! Since many of these Jobers just used for food ... Well, they were considered irrational types, so ...- Oh! Yes you were cannibals! - Wedged Gerard.- No more than you do now. You're eating animals and plants? Drink milk?- Gerard, hey, let Charney remember!- Yes. Our villages under water and on land were beautiful, exquisite, special Jobers illuminated at night, warmed and cooled in the cold in the heat. We had an ultrasound and radio communication via special Jobers-signalers. We lived in a blue and green Jobers-plant moved to Jobers-transports, ate delicious food Jobers-cooks who prepared them from regenerating components themselves ...- Brrr ... - again could not resist Gerard - That's because - sybarites!- And our babies, the larvae were introduced into the body of special Jobers-queens, and where all enjoy the benefits of prenatal. "*****http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5308( http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... _id%3D5308)

Cambrian explosion, from this point of view, was an act of devolution - away from universalism! Like all paleo-history of life. So, the concept of "Evolution" should be changed to the term "Devolution" Here's an argument!

The only thing that is truly unexplainable is the big bang. Saying that everything came from an infinitely dense spec that just randomly explodes is... strange. It's not much of a solid argument AGAINST evolution per se, but evolution does rely heavily on such a bogus idea.

I do NOT believe in everything told in the bible literally. I am willing to realize that it has a grain of truth in it. It got distorted through all the re-writes of various versions and translations etc. Thus, I do NOT believe in any part of “we are exactly the same as we were made by God”.

However, if you allow that the story of creation at least reflects the shadow of what actually happened (after all the idea for the bible did appear from somewhere) and say that god is a “mad scientist” while we are experimental subjects, everything falls in its place…

I know I cannot prove +ve this theory any more than creationists can prove theirs OR any more than evolutionists can prove that our common ancestor with the ape was more ape-like in appearance than human-like. As I said before, evolution from ape-like to human-like appearance presumes appearance of new genes in the gene pool (from where?) that goes against commonly observed disappearance of genes overtime (gene -> pseudogene).

You said you deal with microbes, so… You should know that unless bacteria can pick up genetic material from environment, new genes do not spontaneously appear. However, they can mutate existing genes to survive. Like kan resistance due to mutation in ribosomes. As you also know that too many mutations in any functional gene would lead to loss of fuction…

The world is overrun by idiots. Therefore, either stupidity is somehow extremely beneficial to the human species (which seems very doubtful to me) or naturalselection should have weeded us out long ago in favor of mice. This clear failure of naturalselection demonstrates that we cannot be the products of evolution, and have clearly been designed (probably by mice) to be a species of idiots.

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."

The biggest argument against evolution that I see is found in all DNA. And that is the information that is in fact built into all DNA. Where did the instructions come from? And how are the vast amounts of instructions actually built into the strands themselves. If you can explain to me how evolution or naturalselection accounts for the instructions then I might be swayed a little. So which came first? The chicken or the egg.

The information in DNA was accumulated incrementally over billions of year. The fact that you cannot figure out (nor apparently educate yourself about) how that could have started is not a proof against evolution. Just a demonstration of your lack of understanding.